Seeking university Research Ethics Committee approval: the emotional vicissitudes of a ‘rationalised’ process

Seeking Research Ethics Committee (REC) approval in the humanities and social sciences (HSS) is increasingly encumbered by bureaucratic rules and regulations. Termed 'ethics creep', such governance is challenged by an emerging body of international literature. This article contributes to such literature by documenting the emotional vicissitudes of seeking REC approval in an Irish university, for a proposed sociological study of children with asthma. Our critical discussion includes an account of indeterminate bureaucratic procedures and protocol which, despite their formally rational and rationalised status, were unreasonable, insidious and frustrating. Challenging 'ethics creep' and promoting critical debate underpins our discussion of the researcher's experiences and responses when confronted with bureaucratic irrationality – arguably something that not only taxes researchers' emotions and commitment but also threatens to 'strangle' HSS research and the research base more generally. Keywords: ethicsregulationirrationalityethics creepemotions Acknowledgements The asthma study was funded by the Irish Higher Education Authority's PRTLI-IV. We would also like to thank various unnamed parties for expediting Garda clearance, Maria's research contacts plus the reviewers and editors for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Notes 1. Twelve months later, the REC only required one hard copy of an abbreviated application form, plus an electronic version. Completed interview schedules are also no longer required. Informal conversations with some REC members indicate that increasing workloads have resulted in the need for a more streamlined process. Interestingly, in line with 'ethics creep' (Haggerty, Citation2004), this increased workload is in part due to the stipulation that undergraduates who are undertaking research on 'human subjects' for their Final Year Projects (FYP) must also obtain formal REC approval. The approval of their FYP faculty supervisor, regardless of their position or own research experience, is no longer deemed sufficient. In the words of Haggerty (Citation2004, p. 393): 'This marks a move away from a system based on an assumption of professional competence and responsibility to one based on institutionalized distrust'. The situation with undergraduate students will likely represent a surprising move for commentators such as Rustin (Citation2010, 1.4) who writes that 'professional trust' in supervisors is necessary for practical reasons and the maintenance of a 'well-functioning system of academic teaching and supervision'. 2. In a previous post Maria was involved in policy design and legislative advice to the Irish government's Department of Education and Science and had interviewed over 400 young children. This experience was explicated in the application for ethics approval. 3. It is perhaps telling that the university Law department has a strong presence on the faculty REC. In that respect our university is not unique (see Adler & Adler, Citation2002). Though, as with Dingwall (Citation2008), we would also acknowledge other considerations here such as the institutional 'pursuit of legitimacy' and symbolic validation amidst competition for scarce resources – a 'game' that may seem more like a 'lion's den' for researchers seeking REC approval (Reed, Citation2007). 4. This is not to imply that unfunded research is 'illegitimate'; much research of value is undertaken without specific funds, such as that provided by the PRTLI, Irish Research Council for the HSS or the UK's ESRC. Disturbingly, as discussed by Stanley and Wise (Citation2010) with regard to the 'time-consuming (for the researcher)' nature of seeking REC clearance, even unfunded and 'entirely routine' research is being brought under the remit of RECs (6.4). This is certainly evident at the university where we sought REC approval, serving as a disincentive for some to undertake research. 5. For examples of avoidance and subversion of ethical governance, with reference to prominent sociologists such as Howard Becker, Paul Rabinow and Mitchel Dunier see Haggerty (Citation2004, p. 408). Haggerty also makes the point that he can only identify these people by name because he is citing a journalistic account, and journalists do not encounter the same onerous governance structures as academics. Additionally, Haggerty states that if he proposed to interview academics about their views of ethical regulation, the REC would demand anonymity yet the precise reason why these sociologists' opinions count is because they are well-known; in effect, certain ethics requirements can stultify academic critique.